On appeal from: [2008] EWCA Civ 713. The question in this case whether the intervention of the respondent’s criminal act in the causal relationship between the appellants’ breaches of duty and the damage of which he complains, prevents him from recovering that part of his loss caused by the criminal act.

The respondent was injured in a railway accident, causing him post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. He was subsequently convicted of manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility after killing a pedestrian following an altercation, whilst he was under treatment for his condition. He brought a negligence action against the appellant rail companies, claiming special damages for loss of earnings (what he would have earned if he had remained in his previous employment) for the period during which he has been detained. A claim for future loss is based on the assumption that after release from hospital he is unlikely to find employment. He also claimed general damages for his detention, conviction, feelings of guilt and remorse and damage to reputation and an indemnity against any claims which might be brought by dependants of the dead pedestrian. At first instance, the judge decided that there was the rule of law that precludes recovery in negligence for both loss of earnings and general damages after and in consequence of the killing. The Court of Appeal said that they were bound by authority to hold that it precluded the claim for general damages but not for loss of earnings. Accordingly they allowed the appeal on this point, but remitted to the judge what they called the issue of causation, which they said had not been considered in either court. The question in this case is whether the intervention of the respondent’s criminal act in the causal relationship between the appellants’ breaches of duty and the damage of which he complains, prevents him from recovering that part of his loss caused by the criminal act. The question is whether these features of the causal relationship between the injury and the damage are such as to prevent the respondent from recovering.